By NORA NEWMAN JURGENS

MOVING INTO the last month of the regular spring 1983 session, the Illinois General Assembly has been going "full steam ahead," more or less. Some 3,631 bills were introduced in both houses by the April 15 deadline, and all were to be processed through their respective committees by the end of the second week of May.

A decrease in the number of bill introductions, one of the hoped-for effects of the 1980 Cutback Amendment, has not been realized. With 59 fewer House members, bill introductions increased from 2,012 in 1981 to 2,277 in 1983. The Senate also produced more, up from 1,273 to 1,354. (For more effects of the Cutback, see "Politics," p. 2.)

The top legislative priority appears to be solving the state's fiscal problems. Solutions proposed by legislation range from Gov. James R. Thompson's four-year tax increase package to short-term borrowing, and even include such measures as legalizing dog-racing with some revenue going to the state. Thompson managed to get a very reluctant Senate Minority Leader James "Pate" Philip to sponsor his tax package in the 11th hour. Before the bill even made it to a Senate committee, House Speaker Michael J. Madigan threatened to "bottle up" any of the governor's tax bills until Thompson reveals plans for spending the increased revenue. (For details on the tax package, see "The state of the State," p. 4.)

Legislators also received a visit from former colleague and newly elected Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, in town on April 20 to consult with Thompson and legislative leaders on the major issues confronting the state. In a courtesy call to the House and Senate, Washington sounded the cry of "Save the State," saying he knew there were problems, but after talking with Thompson, he realizes "we're in serious trouble."

The last time a Chicago mayor addressed the assembly was in 1976, when the late Richard J. Daley pleaded for passage of a school-aid bill.

Aside from revenue and budget measures, other bills have been moving smoothly through the process. Two of the more prominent issues unrelated to taxes include utility reform and a freedom of information act. Legislation on both issues is expected to be passed — even before the last-minute logjam and deals at the end of June.

ASK LEGISLATORS what complaint tops constituent lists, and they are likely to reply, "utility rates." Believe it or not, the high price of utilities is the one issue that crowds out raising taxes.

Constituent complaints have prompted a multitude of bills in the House and Senate — bills which seek to address consumers' frustations by giving them a voice in how rates are decided. This year's legislation can be divided into two categories — bills that call for an elected Illinois Commerce Commission (I1CC) and those that call for a Citizens' Utility Board (CUB).

While the I1CC is itself considering the establishment of a CUB by administrative order, there were four CUB bills in the House and three in the Senate by the deadline for the introduction of bills, April 15. House Speaker Michael J. Madigan established a Democratic Task Force on Public Utilities to arrive at a consensus on reform bills. He has come out in favor of a CUB but is opposed to an elected I1CC. He does support a bill which would remove most of the IlCC's exemptions from the state's Open Meetings Act.

Meanwhile in the Senate, Democratic members of the Agriculture, Conservation and Energy Committee combined utility reform bills into one package, including a seven-member elected I1CC. Called the "Illinois Utility Reform Act of 1983," it is sponsored by committee chairman Jerome Joyce (D-14, Chicago). He used a vehicle bill S.B. 5 (a CUB bill), with the rest of the package in the form of amendments including rate-base restrictions and other reforms.

The CUB bills originally introduced in both houses were basically all the same: They would set up a consumer elected board which would represent consumer interests at I1CC rate making hearings. Under the bills, any Illinois residential utility consumer would be eligible to join the CUB by paying a small fee. Membership fees would be used to pay staff and wittnesses called to testify at rate hearing. The idea behind a CUB is to give consumers an effective well-financed voice at rate hearings where the advantage has usually been with the utilities' attorneys and experts.

Voters in the April 12 consolidate municipal elections voiced their belief in a CUB. In 107 communities throughout the state, advisory referendums calling on state legislators to establish a CUB were overwhelmingly approved. Chicago had already passed a similar referendum in last November's election. With Gov. James R. Thompson's April 25 endorsement of the concept, passage of a CUB bill is virtually assured.

Opponents — mostly the utilities, as well as the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce — say a CUB is not needed because it would be duplicative. They say consumers are already adequatetly represented by private groups, the Illinois attorney general and the governor. The utilities also take exception to the idea of including CUB information with their billings. CUB supporters, who include the Coalition for Political Honesty and the Labor Coalition on Public Utilities, refute this argument, saying the bills "belong to the rate-payers" and they have a "right" to the information.

22/June 1983/Illinois Issues

Legislative Action

Still, a CUB bill may pass this session for no other reason than it is less controversial than an elected Illinois Commerce Commission. Whether or not an elected I1CC would mean more equitable rate making depends on who's debating the question. Proponents cite studies of the 11 states which have elected commissions, and say rates are generally lower there than in states which have appointed commissions. They also say that an elected commission would be more accountable to consumers, and that the public would have a greater voice in commission proceedings. Opponents — again the utilities and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce — also cite studies; but theirs show no appreciable difference in rates between the states with elected and the states with appointed commissions. Their major concern is that the complex issues surrounding rate making will not be adequately addressed if commission members have to be concerned with reelection.

The current commission has five members appointed by the governor, with confirmation by the Senate. Thompson's appointment of Philip O'Connor (who was his 1982 campaign manager) as new chairman, was confirmed by the Senate in March. Helen Schmid, a 10-year commissioner up for reconfirmation, was not so lucky. Senators rejected her reappointment, citing a "poor track record" of higher rates.

Although there is support for an elected I1CC in both nouses (five House bills and three Senate bills), passage will be as difficult this session as it has been in previous sessions. Gov. James R. Thompson has said he will veto any bill calling for an elected IlCC. But a compromise may come this year in the form of a nominating council, which would screen potential candidates and present a list to the governor for his appointment. The staff of the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources recommended such a council in its report to a Thompson task force on utility regulation. A bill establishing such a council has been introduced in the Senate.

There are also a number of bills which would place various restrictions on utilities. Similar to bills introduced in previous sessions, they range from prohibiting the inclusion of the cost of "Construction Work in Progress" (CWIP) in the rate base of a utility to giving senior citizens a 25 percent discount on utility charges.

The utilities stand vigorously opposed to any restrictions the legislature may impose. But 1983 seems to be the year the legislature wants to "do something" about utility rates; it will be interesting to see if the powerful utilities will be able to overcome the pressures of consumers being felt in the legislative offices.

Freedom of information: Illinois is last holdout

ILLINOIS stands alone in the nation as the only state without a Freedom of Information (FOI) law. That distinction would be eliminated under a bill that a bipartisan group of legislators in the House has introduced this session to balance the right to privacy with the right to know.

Although Illinois has various open records laws, none applies to all public records of all public bodies. This year's bill, H.B. 234, follows a long tradition of efforts to establish a uniform FOI law in Illinois. Opposition by the powerful Illinois Municipal League has defeated past attempts. Supporters believe this year's bill will appease the league. Sponsored by Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-26, Chicago), the bill is backed by the Illinois chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, Freedom of Information Council, as well as 20 other "better government" organizations.

Major points of opposition are that such a uniform FOI law would be "unduly burdensome," "take up staff time" and be expensive for municipalities. Supporters of H.B. 234 say it will not require public bodies to keep any records other than those they already do. If it is established that H.B. 234 would be a state mandate, municipalities would be reimbursed by the state for any undue costs. Copying costs would be born by persons seeking the information.

Speaker Michael J. Madigan, who is a co-sponsor, threw his weight behind the bill. He authored an amendment to include the General Assembly in the provisions of the act. His amendment was one of 11 included as compromises worked out with the Municipal League to ensure their approval of the bill. With Madigan's backing, passage of the bill is likely. It was on second reading in the House April 21.

A Senate bill approaches the issue of freedom of information from a different tack. Sponsored by Sen. Terry Bruce (D-54, Olney), S.B. 1332 would establish an Open Records Act. It starts out with the premise that all public records of all public bodies are open. But, because the law would not take effect until July 1, 1985, any public body would have a chance to appeal to the legislature for exemptions. The bill does contain provisions protecting the confidentiality of certain "sensitive" records, such as investigatory records of law enforcement, and information which could constitute an invasion of privacy.

This column was written in mid-April, when most legislative action was focused in committee. Watch for more analysis of House and Senate action in the next two magazines.

June 1983 | Illinois Issues | 23